My view to all historical war games including current conflicts is keep the politics out of it. Focus on the equipment and troops, it's the politics that's disagreeable. All soldiers in history for the most part are subject to the whims of the leadership. Just play to the tactics and strategy like a chess match. WW2 Eastern front to me is a good example. What I would argue are 2 evil sides but we have to pick one to play. The average soldier through all of history is just trying to survive. We can respect the past without getting personal. Having said that, I do prefer to play union is American Civil war as I had family in that war. Great vid mate.
Well one of the founders of what we recognise as wargaming Brigadier Peter Young I think one of WW2 most decorated UK soldiers I wonder if he left a response to this question anywhere. I remember as well a Little Wars TV episode covering Iraq War with one of the Veterans of that battle. I think as well there's a growing distinction between a political war and one that challenges societal norms such as WW2 Germans and ACW Confederacy with its own recent flag controversy. Political Wars, even were its Epire Building like Anglo-Zulu war seem more accepted than some of the wars with participants more questionable views on why they are fighting.
Gaming an ongoing conflict can be seen as tasteless, but to paraphrase HG Wells in Little Wars "How much better would it be if all the princes and warmongers were placed in a temple of war, with all the toy soldiers and terrain that could ever need and let them play the hideous game of war there and leave the rest of us in peace. Of course it should be remembered that "wargames" were developed essentially to plan contempory wars (kreigspiel etc)
Great topic. For me its anything currently on going I'll probably not do, but everything else I am fine with. Just finished painting that PACT starter set myself.
I have no issue with any period being played, including current conflicts. We play wargames, which are not real war in any shape or form. Personally, I don't play anything post WW2 not because it may tigger me as a veteran. Just it is of little interest to me, and I prefer to play other historical periods. But, I would play post WW2 at the club with someone elses models. It is a good question, and I fully understand some peoples reasons for not playing modern conflicts.
Well to this day in this community you'll always get the few who say we shouldn't paint German soldiers from ww2,so as long as you are happy to paint modern or historic stuff it shouldn't matter
I personally would find an ongoing conflict to be a bit tasteless- but I have no real interest in wargaming anything post- 1900 anyway. But each to their own is my view
I have no interest in anything after the 1960's. But as the saying goes 'War is Hell'. No war is better than another in terms of humans doing brutal things to each other.
I feel like your friend does, nothings off limits, BUT, I think there's a duty to do it responsibly and with respect and a degree of sensitivity. Invasion of Ukraine is an interesting and yeah, exciting period to wargame, but id just ge mindful wherei played it. E.g. if you took it to a public show, I think you'd get complaints, and if the Russians won in the game, even more so., but in most clubs people "get" that you're not glorifying war etc. So it would be fine
Ultimately, are the people in and around your game likely to have recently lost people close to them in the conflict? If so, probably a question of consent should be asked. If not, I reckon most will be fine with it
My view to all historical war games including current conflicts is keep the politics out of it. Focus on the equipment and troops, it's the politics that's disagreeable. All soldiers in history for the most part are subject to the whims of the leadership. Just play to the tactics and strategy like a chess match. WW2 Eastern front to me is a good example. What I would argue are 2 evil sides but we have to pick one to play. The average soldier through all of history is just trying to survive. We can respect the past without getting personal. Having said that, I do prefer to play union is American Civil war as I had family in that war. Great vid mate.
Well one of the founders of what we recognise as wargaming Brigadier Peter Young I think one of WW2 most decorated UK soldiers I wonder if he left a response to this question anywhere. I remember as well a Little Wars TV episode covering Iraq War with one of the Veterans of that battle. I think as well there's a growing distinction between a political war and one that challenges societal norms such as WW2 Germans and ACW Confederacy with its own recent flag controversy. Political Wars, even were its Epire Building like Anglo-Zulu war seem more accepted than some of the wars with participants more questionable views on why they are fighting.
Gaming an ongoing conflict can be seen as tasteless, but to paraphrase HG Wells in Little Wars "How much better would it be if all the princes and warmongers were placed in a temple of war, with all the toy soldiers and terrain that could ever need and let them play the hideous game of war there and leave the rest of us in peace.
Of course it should be remembered that "wargames" were developed essentially to plan contempory wars (kreigspiel etc)
Great topic. For me its anything currently on going I'll probably not do, but everything else I am fine with. Just finished painting that PACT starter set myself.
I think it's cold war conversations podcast, but there is a fascinating interview with an East German T72 commander.
@@Unclecthulu I'll definitely have a look into that cheers
I have no issue with any period being played, including current conflicts. We play wargames, which are not real war in any shape or form. Personally, I don't play anything post WW2 not because it may tigger me as a veteran. Just it is of little interest to me, and I prefer to play other historical periods. But, I would play post WW2 at the club with someone elses models.
It is a good question, and I fully understand some peoples reasons for not playing modern conflicts.
My personal opinion comes down to the word War Game. It's just a game! As such I would say anything is fair game.
Well to this day in this community you'll always get the few who say we shouldn't paint German soldiers from ww2,so as long as you are happy to paint modern or historic stuff it shouldn't matter
I personally would find an ongoing conflict to be a bit tasteless- but I have no real interest in wargaming anything post- 1900 anyway. But each to their own is my view
I have no interest in anything after the 1960's. But as the saying goes 'War is Hell'. No war is better than another in terms of humans doing brutal things to each other.
I feel like your friend does, nothings off limits, BUT, I think there's a duty to do it responsibly and with respect and a degree of sensitivity.
Invasion of Ukraine is an interesting and yeah, exciting period to wargame, but id just ge mindful wherei played it. E.g. if you took it to a public show, I think you'd get complaints, and if the Russians won in the game, even more so., but in most clubs people "get" that you're not glorifying war etc. So it would be fine
Ultimately, are the people in and around your game likely to have recently lost people close to them in the conflict? If so, probably a question of consent should be asked. If not, I reckon most will be fine with it